Positional depth/sweet spots and draft strategy

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

51 minutes ago, brooks1957 said:

If Saquon is still on the board at 4, and you DON'T select him, well.....

You just showed off your 1-31 intelligence.

Obviously, because all of the recent Super Bowl champs leaned on a top shelf running back to win a title.

[brownie man]

Man idk that Buffalo trade would be extremely hard to turn down and I love Barkely

But getting 

Guice+Christian Kirk, or Josh Jackson, or Arden Key, or Courtland Sutton, or Mike McGlinchey, or Sam Hubbard, or Marcus Davenport, or Orlando Brown, or Mike Hughes

idk man that’s tough 

[mistakey]

my philosophy:
1. sign FAs to fill holes for this year
2. draft BPA for holes you anticipate the following year
3. trade up/down to maximize your draft position for 2
4. draft players with lots of experience from good schools who are athletic and played well in the first rounds
5. draft players with lots of experience who are athletic and played well from small schools in later rounds
6. draft players with high effort but low physical attributes in later rounds as well
7. draft a kicker in the 7th round until you find one you like
8. if you have a lot of draft capital, keep on trading it forward-- gms get greedy and give up insane value for current picks


if by chance the players in step 2 get good this year, then congrats you've nailed it and your team got good way quicker than expected

[bruceb]

58 minutes ago, brownie man said:

Man idk that Buffalo trade would be extremely hard to turn down and I love Barkely

But getting 

Guice+Christian Kirk, or Josh Jackson, or Arden Key, or Courtland Sutton, or Mike McGlinchey, or Sam Hubbard, or Marcus Davenport, or Orlando Brown, or Mike Hughes

idk man that’s tough 

No, it's not.

Accept it.

It's all about value, which is emotionless.

[Bucketheadsdad]

15 minutes ago, bruceb said:

No, it's not.

Accept it.

It's all about value, which is emotionless.

Damn, you probably missed your calling.  You should have been a matchmaker.  The weddings would be epic PPV programming. 

[bruceb]

2 minutes ago, Bucketheadsdad said:

Damn, you probably missed your calling.  You should have been a matchmaker.  The weddings would be epic PPV programming. 

And then some.

[NateDawg]

The important thing is that you hit on your picks, period. If they hit at QB with their QBOTGF, draft is a success IMO. Beyond that, there’s a lot of discussion over positional needs and priorities at 4. With that said though, you can argue the value of a great RB vs a great DE, DB, LB, or whatever position. If the guy you draft at whatever position is a pro bowl caliber guy though, nobody is going to be (or should be at least) upset because someone else would have been a better positional selection. I’d agree with what has been said before, that Ramsey and Bosa, given what they have been post draft, could mean even more than Zeke to their teams. However, not every DE/DB at 3-5 is going to turn out that way. Great DB/DE > great RB. However, if you have the RB as a game changer and other positional guys evaluated as good but not great starters, I still think you take the game changer. 

Im not saying I prefer Barkley, because to me, that’s not the ideal. Philosophical though, that’s where I’m at. In the perfect world, if we stay at 4, I’d rather we hit it out of the park with either Chubb/Minkah and a steal RB round 2. 

[MWil23]

4 minutes ago, NateDawg said:

The important thing is that you hit on your picks, period. If they hit at QB with their QBOTGF, draft is a success IMO. Beyond that, there’s a lot of discussion over positional needs and priorities at 4. With that said though, you can argue the value of a great RB vs a great DE, DB, LB, or whatever position. If the guy you draft at whatever position is a pro bowl caliber guy though, nobody is going to be (or should be at least) upset because someone else would have been a better positional selection. I’d agree with what has been said before, that Ramsey and Bosa, given what they have been post draft, could mean even more than Zeke to their teams. However, not every DE/DB at 3-5 is going to turn out that way. Great DB/DE > great RB. However, if you have the RB as a game changer and other positional guys evaluated as good but not great starters, I still think you take the game changer. 

Im not saying I prefer Barkley, because to me, that’s not the ideal. Philosophical though, that’s where I’m at. In the perfect world, if we stay at 4, I’d rather we hit it out of the park with either Chubb/Minkah and a steal RB round 2. 

IMO this completely hits the nail on the head. To be quite honest, what has gotten these guys in trouble the past 2 drafts, moreso than even trading back, is that they HAVE NOT STUCK TO THEIR DRAFT BOARD.

Let's take last year, for example. They have Watson as their #1 guy on the board, but Hue wants to pick Hooker. While I loved Malik as well, that just is a recipe for disaster. Stick to the board and trust your process/philosophy.

The only obvious exception is to ignore this if you've already gotten your QB or if you're completely loaded at a specific position.

If Barkley is clearly your #1 guy at 4, draft him. If he's not, then don't. If you get absurd value in a tradeback, pull the trigger. If you don't, tell the other team trying to lowball you in a trade to go pound sand.

You can't pass on premier talent based off of the hopes of "positional value" or that _____________ who we like ALMOST as much MAY be there. Last year, we did it with Hooker. We had a deal in place with the Colts to come back up and trade for him. The problem was, they were drafting him because he was #1 on their board. From there, our GM/HC makes the decision to draft the same position (safety) in Peppers, because he was "close" or "the next guy". That can't happen again.

[NudeTayne]

3 hours ago, MWil23 said:

IMO this completely hits the nail on the head. To be quite honest, what has gotten these guys in trouble the past 2 drafts, moreso than even trading back, is that they HAVE NOT STUCK TO THEIR DRAFT BOARD.

Let's take last year, for example. They have Watson as their #1 guy on the board, but Hue wants to pick Hooker. While I loved Malik as well, that just is a recipe for disaster. Stick to the board and trust your process/philosophy.

The only obvious exception is to ignore this if you've already gotten your QB or if you're completely loaded at a specific position.

If Barkley is clearly your #1 guy at 4, draft him. If he's not, then don't. If you get absurd value in a tradeback, pull the trigger. If you don't, tell the other team trying to lowball you in a trade to go pound sand.

You can't pass on premier talent based off of the hopes of "positional value" or that _____________ who we like ALMOST as much MAY be there. Last year, we did it with Hooker. We had a deal in place with the Colts to come back up and trade for him. The problem was, they were drafting him because he was #1 on their board. From there, our GM/HC makes the decision to draft the same position (safety) in Peppers, because he was "close" or "the next guy". That can't happen again.

Well, all this goes in the trash if we can't trust our assessments of players. Last year, IMO our front office screwed up the Peppers pick. I clearly remember 90% of this board seeing Jamal Adams as the top safety followed by Hooker. Hooker had injury concerns so was the 1B. Paying attention to positional value would have told us it's now or never when we were on the clock at 12. Peppers even at 25 was harrowing for a lot of us, as we perceived him to be in a lower tier and thus not worth it. Kamara and Watt were easy picks in my eyes, as they graded out in tier 1 for me. Last year was deep at RB and some great talent fell. I'm just saying can we ignore how deep the starting RB class is to ignore shallower positions in the draft that tend to disappear quickly such as tackle and CB1 (though this year the CBs look ultra deep)? Just some food for thought and all. I love watching Barkley too and would be fine with him at four. 

To add on about Watson, it looks to be the same problem as with Hooker; our front office didn't properly evaluate that he was the last tier 1 QB available, as Mahomes and Trubisky were off the board. If teams saw Kizer as a QB1, he would've not had forty picks go by after Watson. Our FO just whiffed a bit here, even though they had a pretty good draft overall. 

[MWil23]

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Well, all this goes in the trash if we can't trust our assessments of players.

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but I think that we can/should. We had BOTH Watson and Hooker ranked high, and BOTH were available when we traded the pick. Now, it ended up netting us the 4th overall pick, so if we get Darnold/a legitimate Franchise QBOTF, it will have worked out, but it could have worked out last year already in Watson. Oh, and for those that say "let's wait and see" with his injury, I hope that you're all consistent with the Wentz thing, considering his knee injury was WORSE.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Last year, IMO our front office screwed up the Peppers pick. I clearly remember 90% of this board seeing Jamal Adams as the top safety followed by Hooker. Hooker had injury concerns so was the 1B.

Yep. Follow that up with how many people hated Peppers as he was a box player and unsure whether he was a SS or a LB, and then we stupidly play him at a 25+ yard ARCHANGEL SAFETY...just stupid. He may be terrible or may pan out, but his rookie year was a complete waste. I feel bad for the kid, even though I personally have never been a fan of his in the NFL. I hope he proves me wrong.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Paying attention to positional value would have told us it's now or never when we were on the clock at 12. Peppers even at 25 was harrowing for a lot of us, as we perceived him to be in a lower tier and thus not worth it.

Exactly. And, to be honest, I think that drafting Peppers in the late 20's was typical Browns, drafting for need instead of BPA in my opinion. That said, athletically he's definitely there, and in run support, he's definitely there. He wasn't any good in coverage at UM though, so that was a major red flag.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Kamara and Watt were easy picks in my eyes, as they graded out in tier 1 for me.

I was pounding the table for Watt, but whatever. It worked out considering we have 3 rock solid LB's already. Kamara went a round or two later, so I don't have a problem with it.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Last year was deep at RB and some great talent fell. I'm just saying can we ignore how deep the starting RB class is to ignore shallower positions in the draft that tend to disappear quickly such as tackle and CB1 (though this year the CBs look ultra deep)?

As long as we HIT on that pick, then I'd definitely prefer holding off on a RB. However, if we are 100% sure that Barkley (or Fitzpatrick or WHOMEVER for that matter) is our #1 ranked player, you draft him and don't consider the other guys who may/will fall. Plus, why can't we just double down on another guy later? We'd have 2 dynamic rookie RBs to go with Duke, who is a hybrid slot anyway, and goodbye 7th rounder Dayes from 2017.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

Just some food for thought and all. I love watching Barkley too and would be fine with him at four. 

Yeah, I think that we're on the same page, as stated above.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

To add on about Watson, it looks to be the same problem as with Hooker; our front office didn't properly evaluate that he was the last tier 1 QB available, as Mahomes and Trubisky were off the board.

Back to the real issue: The QB Whisperer and fraud Hue Jackson. If only there was as much seismic activity on his Pro Day or Wentz's as there was with RGIII.

16 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

If teams saw Kizer as a QB1, he would've not had forty picks go by after Watson. Our FO just whiffed a bit here, even though they had a pretty good draft overall. 

Compile that with the fact that the entire coaching staff said that Kizer wasn't close to ready yet, and you have the perfect storm that was this past season.

[Mastercheddaar]

What is this, we only get a 4th in 2018 and a 2nd in 2019 crap? We are letting them skip over another team to pick a potential franchise QB. They can pony up a 2nd in 2018 and a late rounder in 2019 as well. 

But back to the topic at hand. I'm all good with taking Barkley at #4. We could also take Chubb or trade down for a combination of either of them as well. 

That is all

Mastercheddaar

[CBrownsman]

I think a lot in free agency is going to be telling, but my guess is by the end of FA your going to see a lot of money payed out to defensive backs and our board look more like QB at #1 (Darnold, Rosen or Mayfield) and then Saquan or Chubb at 4 or trade down.  I like Minkah as a player but we have so much youth at our safety position already I would prefer to get a veteran FS and see how Peppers and Kindred compete at SS.  Also I think we sign a #1 CB in free agency removing the possibility that we draft a CB at 4 also.

[DaWg_LB.]

IMO...trading down with Buffalo who wants to move into the top 4 from 21+22.....would need to include 1rst round pick from 2019 before I even pick up the phone. Taking a RB at 4 who could be an 1700 10TD back with our Oline....a back that we could draft in round 2-4, behind our Oline I feel could be a 14000 8td back. Taking Cubb at 4 you bench 1 or the DE's who are both 1rst round picks AND are showing promise...so we log jam a position with the 4th pick...I think we do need help there with passrushing, but that can be found in round 2...I got a guy in round 5 that I like...and a guy in round 7 I like as a DPR....we have a D that is on the edge of a top10 D....and IMO there is only 1 difference making FS in this entire draft....and we have a need there...I also look at it as the gap between Barkley and Guice/Penny is a lot less IMO, than the gap between Minkah and any other pure FS in the draft....

Minkah Fitzpatrick at #4...or trade down with the Jets and then take Minkah at 6, praying that the Bronco's dont take him. I think the Bronco's go Oline or Barkley if he's there.

[MWil23]

15 hours ago, DaWg_LB. said:

IMO...trading down with Buffalo who wants to move into the top 4 from 21+22.....would need to include 1rst round pick from 2019 before I even pick up the phone. Taking a RB at 4 who could be an 1700 10TD back with our Oline....a back that we could draft in round 2-4, behind our Oline I feel could be a 14000 8td back. Taking Cubb at 4 you bench 1 or the DE's who are both 1rst round picks AND are showing promise...so we log jam a position with the 4th pick...I think we do need help there with passrushing, but that can be found in round 2...I got a guy in round 5 that I like...and a guy in round 7 I like as a DPR....we have a D that is on the edge of a top10 D....and IMO there is only 1 difference making FS in this entire draft....and we have a need there...I also look at it as the gap between Barkley and Guice/Penny is a lot less IMO, than the gap between Minkah and any other pure FS in the draft....

Minkah Fitzpatrick at #4...or trade down with the Jets and then take Minkah at 6, praying that the Bronco's dont take him. I think the Bronco's go Oline or Barkley if he's there.

One of the best posts/summations of my thoughts and exactly how I feel. I wish I could like it more than once.

And if for whatever reason if the Broncos DO take Fitzpatrick, you go ahead and pull the Trigger on Barkley IMO.

[bruceb]

6 hours ago, MWil23 said:

One of the best posts/summations of my thoughts and exactly how I feel. I wish I could like it more than once.

And if for whatever reason if the Broncos DO take Barkley, you go ahead and pull the Trigger on Barkley IMO.

Your thoughts apparently are jumbled.